Comparison of risk assessment tools for cardiovascular diseases: results of an Iranian cohort study.

OBJECTIVES:Several popular cardiovascular risk assessment tools have been developed in Western countries; however, the predictive abilities of these tools have not been evaluated in Middle Eastern countries. The present study aimed to determine the abilities of cardiovascular risk assessment tools in a population-based study in Northern Iran. STUDY DESIGN:Population-based cohort study in Northern Iran. METHODS:In total, 2883 individuals (1629 men and 1254 women), aged 40-74 years, were included in the study. We determined the predictive abilities of the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association (ACC/AHA) risk prediction tool, the Framingham general cardiovascular risk profile in primary care settings, and the Systematic Coronary Risk Evaluation (SCORE) equations for low- and high-risk European countries. Receiver operating characteristic (ROC) analysis was used to determine the predictive abilities of these four risk assessment tools. RESULTS:Based on areas under curve (AUC) values and related 95% confidence intervals (95% CIs), the discriminative abilities of the ACC/AHA tool, the Framingham approach, and the SCORE for low- and high-risk European countries to estimate non-fatal cardiovascular disease (CVD) events were 0.6625, 0.6517, 0.6476 and 0.6458, respectively, in men, and 0.7722, 0.7525, 0.7330 and 0.7331, respectively, in women. Moreover, the abilities of these four tools to estimate fatal CVD events were found to be 0.8614, 0.8329, 0.7996 and 0.7988 in men, and 0.8779, 0.8372, 0.8535 and 0.8518 in women, respectively. CONCLUSIONS:The cardiovascular risk assessment tools investigated in this study showed acceptable predictive abilities in women. The ACC/AHA approach showed slightly better performance compared with the SCORE tool; however, the SCORE tool benefited from the lowest cost compared with all the other tools.